Sep-02-08
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: In the same tournament, Petrosian had played 12...c5 and lost. Here Geller improved with 12...Rb4 harassing the c-pawn, reserving the c-pawn for 17...c7-c6, and waiting until move 31 to put that pawn on c5. Odd that Najdorf wasn't suspicious of Geller's willingness to reenter the same line. Soviet players did have the reputation for working together. |
|
| May-05-20 | | Ruelle: It is not only about the reputation; Petrosian and Geller were close friends and always worked togehter |
|
| May-05-20 | | Inocencio: Communism was the system of government during 1953. I do not believe that friendship between Petrosian and Geller was a factor in Geller's victory in this particular game. Communism does not value family ties. You could observe during those times that even son/daughter can be a witness against his mother/father. With more reason, friendship has no value for them. It was the creativity of Geller that made him an attacking player. Petrosian was a conservative defensive player. You can not compare apple and lemon. |
|
May-05-20
 | | Fusilli: <Inocencio> That Petrosian and Geller reviewed the line after Petrosian's defeat is a possibility. Soviet players often worked together on opening prep, and even in the analysis of adjourned games. Some were friends, some were not, but the authorities certainly expected them to team up to redouble forces when necessary to secure the top places for their country. A difference in styles between Petrosian and Geller doesn't mean they could not look at an opening together, right? Najdorf was an attacking player too, and he trounced Petrosian in Najdorf vs Petrosian, 1953. Here Najdorf burned his boats, but Geller defended well and outplayed him positionally. Interesting game. |
|
Aug-16-24
 | | plang: Najdorf clearly was not worried about an improvement by Geller or he would have avoided the line he used against Petrosian. Geller leaving c5 open so he could place a knight there turned out to be a key difference. Geller coaxed the white f-pawn forward using hyper modern strategy creating weaknesses in White's camp. 32 Qf4 would have been stronger so as to answer 32..a4 with 33 Rxd6 and if 33..Qc7? then 34 Re6. Soltis pointed out that White would have retained some counterplay after 36 R6f6..Rxe3 37 Bd5; instead, the queen trade was hopeless. The game was adjourned but Najdorf decided it was not worth the trouble to continue. |
|
Aug-16-24
 | | Sally Simpson: Bronstein too in his book on the event likes here...
click for larger view 32.Qf4 instead of 32.Qh4. The idea is the same, a later Qh6 but on 32,Qf4 Black could not, as in the game, ignore 33.Rxd6 because the Queen would be attacking the e5 Knight. Najdorf has a book on this event which I have not got, he may offer an explanation why he rejected or simply missed 32.Qf4. |
|
Aug-16-24
 | | nizmo11: <Sally Simpson> Najdorf in his book (English, translation, Russel Enterprises 2012) gives 32. ♕h4 a question mark and writes:
"But now the correct continuation was 32.♕f4, leaving the black knight "up in the air" at key moment, preventing Black from proceeding as he does in the game." |
|
Aug-16-24
| | nizmo11: According to Stockfish 16.1 32.Qh4 was not an error, after 32.Qh4 a4 33.Rxd6 axb3 34. axb3 Rxb3
click for larger viewIts first choice is surprising 35.Kh1!? ( Surely for human not the first move to consider) evaluating this almost equal. Its 2nd and 3rd choice are then 35.Qf4(!) and 35.Qh6 still only with ⩱. |
|
Aug-17-24
 | | keypusher: I liked Najdorfs comment on 7_Bg4 from his book: <The first surprise! My opponent enters the same line as game 42, Najdorf-Petrosian, in which I got the better game. I immediately presumed that he had found some improvement for Black, and after thinking a long time, decided to go ahead and find out!> He thought Gellers subsequent new move was strong, but still liked his position with the bishop pair. |
|
Aug-17-24
| | keypusher: You can see why SF is indifferent to 32.Qf4 versus 32.Qh4; it thinks _exf6 is an adequate response to either. If 32.Qf4 ef 33.Rxd6 f5 and the rook defends the knight. If 33.Qxd6 then _a4, similar to the game. The kingside is hard to break down with the secure knight and queen guarding f7. Also, the game continuation would have been playable even if Najdorf had put the queen on f4 instead of h4: 32_Qf4 a4 33.Rxd6 exf6 34.Rxf6 axb3, etc. I remember being confused by Bronsteins notes, why Black would not just play _exf6 at some point. For once, I wasn’t wrong! |
|
Aug-17-24
| | Sally Simpson: Thanks Nimzo and KP.
I was given the hardback Bronstein book (in descriptive) as 1979 Christmas present. A while back I picked up the soft cover in Algebraic for a few quid around about the same time the Najdorf book came out and went through a few of the games again. I decided against getting Najdorf's book but of course I'll snap it up if I see it in a charity shop. Me here;
click for larger viewWithout a doubt 32.Qh4. Not only drawn to the mating pattern on g7 like a moth to a flame but with Bd5, Bxf7+ and Qxh7+ ideas which only work with 32. Qh4. |
|
Aug-17-24
| | nizmo11: One more comment to this game:
On move 22.Kh2 Najdorf writes: "An error, the consequences which will be seen later. Necessary was 22. ♔h1, foreseeing that further on, after opening up the game, Black would then not have a check on the second rank."
He doesn't comment on this later, but at move 35. (diagram in my previous post)
35.Bd5? fails to 35...Qa2+ 36.Kg1 Qe2. With king at h1 move 35. Bd5 would equalize. This also explains why Stockfish wants to play 35. Kh1 event at the cost of a tempo. This Najdorf's comment looks like written with hindsight, I think at move 22 it was not possible to foresee that the position at move 35 would eventually arise. The play was not forcing for either side. |
|
Kibitzing
